It is argued that analyzing and listing reasons can lead to poorer predictions because reasoners either access information inappropriate to the task or have difficulty integrating the information they do bring to mind. To test this hypothesis, self‐described basketball experts predicted the outcomes of actual basketball games in a national tournament. Half of the participants were asked to analyze and list reasons for their predictions before making them, and half were told explicitly not to analyze their reasons. Compared to nonreasoners, reasoners predicted fewer winners of the games and predicted margins of victory that differed more from both the actual margins of victory and the margins of victory predicted by experts. The relationship between expertise and reasons analysis, and the implications of the results for other domains of prediction are discussed.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 59 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.